| Author | Message | ||
| Freedom55 Registered user Username: Freedom55 Post Number: 21 Registered: 3-2008 |
I have been studying the accounts in Scripture concerning the Jerusalem Council, in Acts 15 and Galatians 2. In particular, Acts 15:5 establishes the issue: “But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them [the Gentiles], and to command them to keep the law of Moses." Peter’s classic response is found in Acts 15:10, “...why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they [the Gentiles].” It now seems obvious to me that the “yoke” Peter was referring to was the law of Moses. In my previous Adventist understanding I had accepted the position that the yoke referred to the ceremonial law only and that it did not include the 10 commandments. In that regard, I found this quote of EGW at page 68 of Sketches from the Life of Paul: “This yoke was not the law of ten commandments, as those who oppose the binding claim of the law assert; but Peter referred to the law of ceremonies, which was made null and void by the crucifixion of Christ.” The problem is that EGW simply makes that statement with no supporting evidence to substantiate her claim that the law of Moses only included the ceremonial law. As I read Acts 15, I see no distinction. It simply refers to the law of Moses. How would the first century Jewish Christians have understood this? When there is a reference to the law of Moses without further qualification, would you not have to conclude that would include the totality of the law of Moses, including the ten commandments? But that’s not all. EGW goes on to make a statement on page 69 of Sketches from the Life of Paul that is not found in the Scriptural account. With reference to the decree made by the Jerusalem Council, she states: “The apostles and elders therefore agreed to instruct the Gentiles by letter to abstain from meats offered to idols, from fornication, from things strangled, and from blood.” If she had stopped there, I don’t think we would have any quarrel. But notice her next statement: “They were required to keep the commandments and to lead holy lives” That statement is not supported by Scripture. There is no reference in Scripture that the Jerusalem Council ever made such a statement. Where & how could EGW come up with this, other than to support her claim and the Adventist claim that the ten commandments were imposed on the Gentile converts. I have read this account in Acts 15 over and over again and I cannot see how this can be true. To me this is simply just one more reason to conclude that EGW is not trustworthy. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1766 Registered: 10-2002  |
Hi Freedom55, I just posted this comment today in the Members' area, and thought I'd share it because of the incredible timing: Peter and the other apostles specifically instructed the Gentiles to stay away from sexual immorality. But if the Gentiles had been learning the 10 commandments, they would be no need to say anything about sexual immorality! But instead, the apostles felt they had to say something about sexual immorality. The obvious reason is because the Ten Commandments were not being taught to the Gentiles -- because the Ten were part of the Mosaic Covenant's Law (indeed, they were the very "words of the covenant"). Circumcision was the entry into the Mosaic Covenant, and the apostles nixed that one right away, setting the old covenant aside ...because it had been surpassed in Christ! (The note about sexual immorality was necessary simply for emphasis for new converts... after time spent walking with Christ, such things would be as Paul said, "obvious deeds of the flesh"). Bless you in Jesus! Ramone | ||
| Freedom55 Registered user Username: Freedom55 Post Number: 22 Registered: 3-2008 |
Ramone, you're so right about the incredible timing. The logic of your statement is so clear, it makes we wonder how I could not see that before? Its like cataracts that have been removed from my eyes and I can now SEE! I recall the old Adventist teaching that is based entirely on assumptions, assumptions that just don't add up in light of your comments. They argue that the silence regarding the commandments is due to the "fact" that it was already common knowledge and therefore didn't require specific comments. But how can you argue from silence? Its just not there, and your statement is dead on. Thank you, thank you, thank you. This has been most helpful. | ||
| Brian3 Registered user Username: Brian3 Post Number: 199 Registered: 8-2005 |
Ramone, Could you direct me to verses in the OT that connect adultery and sexual immorality, or as in some translations, fornication? Not that I necessarily disagree, I'm only finding that adultery is in relation to marriage. In Christ, Brian | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9534 Registered: 12-2003  |
Freedom55, Yes! Acts 15, without the commentary of EGW, explicitly says the Law of Moses (the entire law) was not for Christ-followers. By not being circumcised, they did not enter the OC and become obligated to the law. The NT is repeatedly and forcefully clear that Christians are to live moral, careful, godly lives. In fact, the sins Paul lists in his epistles include far more than the 10 Commandments included: slander, gossip, greed, coarse jesting, empty talk, etc. But ceremonies including the Sabbath were never required as part of a Christian's life. The NC depends upon the Holy Spirit to teach and convict the believer. Adventists run into the problem of the Holy Spirit apparently not convicting believers of Sabbath-keeping, although it is obvious that He convicts them of morality and of living with a commitment to honor God and care for one another. Yes, you are correct in your assessment. The early church would have HAD to teach the Gentiles to keep Sabbath if it had been a requirement for Christians. If it really were the mark of a true believer, it would have to have been openly taught. Otherwise, how would pagan Gentiles ever have understood they had to keep it? Colleen | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 412 Registered: 1-2006  |
God’s eternal moral principles are just that: eternal. These principles are the eternal law of God, written on our hearts, the same unwritten moral law that is referred to throughout the New Testament. But the New Testament declares that the old law, the Ten Commandments, “the tablets of stone” and that which “was engraved in letters on stones” was abolished (2 Cor 3: 7, 11, 13) The Greek verb in 2 Cor 3:7, 11, 13 is “katargeo” which means “to render inoperative, cause to cease, abolish, to pass away” (W.J. Hickey, Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament, Baker, 1977, p. 99) SDAs also try to distinguish between the Sinai covenant and the law to say that the old covenant was not the same as the 10 commandments (and that it was therefore only the old covenant, not the law itself, that was abolished) but if you read Deut. 5:2-22, Romans 5:13,14, Galatians 3:17-19,Jeremiah 31;31-34, Heb 8:6-13, Deut 9:9, 2 Chron 5:10, 1Kings 8:9, 21 this question vanishes. All the words which the Lord spoke included the 10 commandments along with civil and ceremonial laws, and these were written in a book and sealed and ratified with blood. (Ex. 24:1-8) All were part of the old covenant, and with its abrogation, they came to an end. Paul says the whole thing was nailed to the cross—sabbath and all. Col 2:14-17. Just to make sure, Heb 9:1-10 tells us that the whole thing, including the sanctuary, the ark with the tables of stone, and more, all applied only until the time of the new order, and that the new covenant “not in tables of stone” has taken its place. 2 Cor 3:3, 7-13. Compare this to Ex:34:29-34 for absolute proof that it was the 10 commandment law written on the tables of stone that was done away. There’s more to this than meets the eye, because Jesus Himself is the New Covenant—more on this later. These scriptures are clear. The old covenant “gendereth to bondage” (Gal 4:21-30). We are plainly told to “cast it out.” When I realized that what I had been told about the law simply wasn’t true, it made me question a lot of other things I’d learned. Not later than A.D. 120, Paul’s teaching buddy, Barnabas, said that Christians observed the first day of the week “the day on which Jesus rose from the dead.” Aside from the scriptural evidence of Sunday meetings, this is early anecdotal evidence from Paul’s trusted friend. Justin Martyr, writing about A.D. 140 affirmed the same, that “On the day called Sunday, all (Christians) who live in the cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read . . . Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly.” Eusebius also give similar proof. Many new commands are given in the New Covenant (New Testament). The command to “remember me” refers to the Lord’s Supper. There is a command to not forsake the assembling of yourselves together, to stand fast in the freedom which you now have, etc. Paul tells us clearly in 2 Cor 3 that all commands (both moral and ceremonial) given in the Old Covenant ceased to apply under the new covenant. However, with a change in covenant came change in law (Hebrews 7:12)—one far superior to the old, which encompasses the eternal moral principles of God, which the Holy Spirit writes on our hearts. This eternal law is also known as the law of Christ (Gal 6:2) the law of the Spirit (Romans 8:2) the law of liberty (James 1:25) the law of grace and faith (John 1:17) not for Israel only (Deut 4:6-8, 5:3) but for all men (Luke 22:20, Mark 14:24. Indeed, nine of the originals, plus many new commands, apply to Christians. For obvious reasons, the seventh-day Sabbath, as sign of the obsolete covenant, was never given to Christians, nor was it given to the millions of gentile believers who have come into the church since Pentecost. The seventh-day Sabbath was a shadow, fulfilled in Christ (Col 2:16,17). Christians now rest in Him and His completed work on their behalf— not just one day a week—see Hebrews 3:13 and chapter 4:8,9, which clearly uncouples the true Sabbath rest of God from the day of the week and instead fixes the day as “Today” as in v.7. Christians are invited to rest as God did when the Creation was finished—24/7 beginning now, today, and continuing every day throughout eternity, not just once a week as was commanded at Sinai. Just an aside here since we’re so close to this topic. We’ve listened to many preachers who fail to understand the difference between the priesthood of Aaron and Melchisedec. If we mistakenly project certain elements of the Aaronic priesthood and its laws, (along with the two apartment sanctuary) into heaven, we have no choice but to assume that the laws of the Sinai still apply. But Hebrews 7:16-19 tells us clearly that this isn’t so, and that the law changed (Hebrews 7:12, 17,18, 22) because we now have a totally superior High Priest. Failing to see the change of the law that necessarily follows a change in the type of priesthood (no longer after Aaron but instead like Melchisedec), we end up with teachings that are simply not Biblical. Former conference president R. A. Grieve, commenting on the misunderstanding that comes from assuming that the ministry of Christ (Melchisedec was a type of Christ) was just a continuation of the Aaronic priesthood, called this the “great swindle” of our church, which results in teachings like the investigative judgment and finally standing before God without a Mediator—nothing less than perfection in the flesh. Long lists of sins are given in several places in the New Testament covering everything we would need to understand. Mark 7:21, 22; Romans 1:29-31; Gal. 5:19-21; 2 Tim 3:1-4 give scores of sins (a combined total of 67 are listed, with a few repeated), but never is Sabbath breaking mentioned. It just isn’t a Christian command. For more than 150 years now some preachers have said that Sunday is the mark of the beast and those who break the old covenant Sabbath will be lost. Many would dismiss this as harmless—even if it is not Biblical. But Paul does not regard the matter of imposing old covenant commands on new believers lightly. Referring to the old covenant, Paul says “if I rebuild what has been torn down, I prove myself to be a transgressor.” Gal 2:18. We are here warned not to rebuild the old covenant with its restrictions. So as Christians we believe that new believers are not bound by any old covenant commands unless they are also given as part of the new covenant. Paul makes this quite clear in Galatians and in Romans 14. | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 413 Registered: 1-2006 |
A little more on this topic, if we aren't worn out already! There are problems with teaching the 10 commandments! In Acts 15 the Christians made a point of writing to the Gentiles (see v 23) to warn them about this! Remember that the ancients reasoned (and wrote) from effect to cause, which is just backwards of the way we do as westerners. To understand some of these verses, you sort of have to read the logic from back to front, and then it makes perfect sense. It finally dawned on me that this is why I Acts 15:21 seems out of place! The Christians did not take this matter lightly (that Moses had throughout many generations been taught in every city) so they wrote a letter to correct this! They were saying, don't teach this stuff any longer--it's detrimental (it troubles people (see v 24). This was the whole point of the parable of the good samaritan. I've said enough here! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9539 Registered: 12-2003 |
Bob, thank you. Great posts! Colleen | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 414 Registered: 1-2006 |
Freedom55 You wrote "That statement is not supported by Scripture. There is no reference in Scripture that the Jerusalem Council ever made such a statement. Where & how could EGW come up with this, other than to support her claim and the Adventist claim that the ten commandments were imposed on the Gentile converts. I have read this account in Acts 15 over and over again and I cannot see how this can be true. To me this is simply just one more reason to conclude that EGW is not trustworthy." I agree! So many people have come on this forum and have poured out their frustration at having been lied to, and the toll it has taken on their lives. You know, Paul, in Phil 1:28-30 says that those who are adversaries of the gospel have their sign (which is proof of their perdition) . . . "and that (is based on word) from God." These hassles will end someday. Bob | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1768 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hi Brian3, Actually, I thought of that objection. It's not actually necessary to go that route, however. Acts 15:21 says that "Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath." Adventists generally take this to mean that the Law (meaning 10C primarily) was being taught to Gentiles at the synagogues. But if you examine the whole list of things that were forbidden in Acts 15 -- 1) food polluted by idols 2) sexual immorality 3) the meat of strangled animals 4) blood -- then you realize that these are things covered by the Law of Moses. "Moses" in 15:21 clearly refers to the Mosaic Law, as is shown by this list of 4 commands that are from the Mosaic law. To give these 4 instructions on top of "Moses" would be redundant extraordinaire. But instead the apostles went through a great deal of effort to get these instructions to the gentile churches. So the "Moses that was "preached & read on every Sabbath" refers to the same "yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear." "Sexual immorality" is a very broad term, true, and it certainly includes adultery. Generally Adventists see the commandment forbidding adultery as being the fountain (so to speak) of all commands against sexual immorality. Thus by their own theory, it would be redundant to issue a statement about sexual impropriety when in fact "the commandment" was said to be so all-encompassing. Actually, this degree of how "encompassing" a command is ... it's pretty interesting now that I think about it. Because I just read Leviticus 18 today and there is A LOT of stuff in there about specific, different forms of sexual immorality! What I think this may suggest is not that the apostles were necessarily telling Gentiles to completely disregard Moses, but rather the apostles were giving the Gentiles keys to interpreting the law of Moses! It's like saying, "Here are some areas that are important for you to pay attention to if you are there reading the scriptures at a synagogue -- the other stuff, don't worry about it!" They wanted the Gentiles to not be worried about the pressure they might receive at synagogues and among groups of Jews. If I get time, I'll try to run a search later. Or you can go to biblegateway.com and get a head start on me, haha! Bless you in Jesus, Ramone (Message edited by agapetos on March 12, 2009) | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 423 Registered: 1-2006 |
Just a couple days ago I read an article on the Jerusalem Council that tried to insist that the real issue (and basis for the decision) was the painful circumcision of adult males. It didn't bother God at all to require circumcision of adult males in the OC. If this had been the real issue, the Jerusalem Council could have easily have issued a waiver for adult gentile Christians. They certainly had the freedom to do so. Elsewhere, Paul repeatedly emphasizes the broad freedom of the NC church in deciding such matters. For example, in Colossians 2:17: Let no one judge you in regard to eating and drinking or festivals or new moons or sabbaths but (except for) the body of Christ. Apparently the original greek translates literally "but the body of Christ" which is the church. So the church could judge these things and decide which were to be required. Broad powers indeed! It seems hard to believe that the church could vote to overturn the Law of Moses! But they did. The Council addressed the real issue: must gentile Christians keep the law of Moses? The matter was resolved, a letter was written and delivered, and the Christians rejoiced. The Holy Spirit confirmed the decision, v28. Bob |
